FB, if you happen to read any of this, we would love to hear your thoughts!That said, Dennis Klocek is my favorite teacher from within that tradition. And he's a friend so I'm very biased.
Guys, thanks for pointing, I'm reading it too now.
I'm still slowly digesting it, so I don't want to give any premature opinions.
I'm reading Steiner's "The Stages of Higher Knowledge" and here is one observation. The thesis that Steiner's paradigm contradicts with the nondual one is a gross misunderstanding. What Steiner describes in the quote below is pointing exactly to the experiential nondual state of consciousness, which Rupert Spira concisely put as "In ignorance, I am something; in love, I am everything." Granted, there are plenty of distorted versions of nondual teachings flourishing in the modern times, which Cleric rightly criticized, but identifying the authentic nonduality with all these distortions in order to criticize it is beating a strawman. There are many seemingly different paths and practices leading to such nondual realization. For example, Sufism, Buddhism and Advaita may seem to be very different in methods and teachings for an outsider, but essentially lead to the same destination of nondual realization if practiced correctly. And, as it turns out, Steiner's path leads to the same destination, even though its practical methods and philosophical approach may differ in particularities from the other paths. Once this understood, of course we can argue which paths are more efficient and more direct from practical perspective. But a practical person should approach it from a different perspective, and instead of adhering to one path to criticize the others, should rather consider which practical elements of each path can be adopted to make one's own spiritual practice more efficient and integrative/encompassing.
“Lastly, at the fourth stage of knowledge Inspiration also ceases. Of the elements customarily observed in everyday knowledge, the ego alone remains to be considered. The attainment of this stage by the occult student is marked by a definite inner experience. This experience manifests itself in the feeling that he no longer stands outside the things and occurrences that he recognizes, but is himself within them. Images are not the object, but merely its imprint. Also, inspiration does not yield up the object itself, but only tells about it. But what now lives in the soul is in reality the object itself. The ego has streamed forth over all beings; it has merged with them. The actual living of things within the soul is Intuition. When it is said of Intuition that “through it man creeps into all things,” this is literally true. — In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself, for the ego can in no way be perceived from without; it can only be experienced in the inner life. A simple consideration will make this fact clear. It is a consideration that has not been applied by psychologists with sufficient exactitude. Unimpressive as it may appear to one with full understanding, it is of the most far-reaching significance. It is as follows. A thing in the outer world can be called by all men by the self-same name. A table can be spoken of by all as a “table”; a tulip by all as a “tulip.” Mr. Miller can be addressed by all as “Mr. Miller.” But there is one word that each can apply only to himself. This is the word “I.” No other person can call me “I.” To anyone else I am a “you.” In the same way everyone else is a “you” to me. Only I can say “I” to myself. This is because each man lives, not outside, but within the “I.” In the same way, in intuitive cognition, one lives in all things. The perception of the ego is the prototype of all intuitive cognition. Thus to enter into all things, one must first step outside oneself. One must become “selfless” in order to become blended with the “self,” the “ego” of another being.”
Rudolph Steiner. The Stages of Higher Knowledge
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 5:24 pmI'm reading Steiner's "The Stages of Higher Knowledge" and here is one observation. The thesis that Steiner's paradigm contradicts with the nondual one is a gross misunderstanding. What Steiner describes in the quote below is pointing exactly to the experiential nondual state of consciousness, which Rupert Spira concisely put as "In ignorance, I am something; in love, I am everything." Granted, there are plenty of distorted versions of nondual teachings flourishing in the modern times, which Cleric rightly criticized, but identifying the authentic nonduality with all these distortions in order to criticize it is beating a strawman. There are many seemingly different paths and practices leading to such nondual realization. For example, Sufism, Buddhism and Advaita may seem to be very different in methods and teachings for an outsider, but essentially lead to the same destination of nondual realization if practiced correctly. And, as it turns out, Steiner's path leads to the same destination, even though its practical methods and philosophical approach may differ in particularities from the other paths. Once this understood, of course we can argue which paths are more efficient and more direct from practical perspective. But a practical person should approach it from a different perspective, and instead of adhering to one path to criticize the others, should rather consider which practical elements of each path can be adopted to make one's own spiritual practice more efficient and integrative/encompassing.
“Lastly, at the fourth stage of knowledge Inspiration also ceases. Of the elements customarily observed in everyday knowledge, the ego alone remains to be considered. The attainment of this stage by the occult student is marked by a definite inner experience. This experience manifests itself in the feeling that he no longer stands outside the things and occurrences that he recognizes, but is himself within them. Images are not the object, but merely its imprint. Also, inspiration does not yield up the object itself, but only tells about it. But what now lives in the soul is in reality the object itself. The ego has streamed forth over all beings; it has merged with them. The actual living of things within the soul is Intuition. When it is said of Intuition that “through it man creeps into all things,” this is literally true. — In ordinary life man has only one “intuition” — namely, of the ego itself, for the ego can in no way be perceived from without; it can only be experienced in the inner life. A simple consideration will make this fact clear. It is a consideration that has not been applied by psychologists with sufficient exactitude. Unimpressive as it may appear to one with full understanding, it is of the most far-reaching significance. It is as follows. A thing in the outer world can be called by all men by the self-same name. A table can be spoken of by all as a “table”; a tulip by all as a “tulip.” Mr. Miller can be addressed by all as “Mr. Miller.” But there is one word that each can apply only to himself. This is the word “I.” No other person can call me “I.” To anyone else I am a “you.” In the same way everyone else is a “you” to me. Only I can say “I” to myself. This is because each man lives, not outside, but within the “I.” In the same way, in intuitive cognition, one lives in all things. The perception of the ego is the prototype of all intuitive cognition. Thus to enter into all things, one must first step outside oneself. One must become “selfless” in order to become blended with the “self,” the “ego” of another being.”
Rudolph Steiner. The Stages of Higher Knowledge
Klocek wrote:The meditative practice of awakening within the dream allows the soul to become a conscious yet humble citizen of the cosmos. In this unique state the seedlike forces of life liberated at the change of teeth can be directly experienced as analogs or signposts giving reliable directions for the journey of the human soul through the various stages of life. Through the waking dream, the researcher begins to see the forces in nature not as dead abstractions, but as morphologically creative beings. They become capable of sustaining an ongoing dialogue with these beings, which live on the other side of the threshold between this world and the next. Awakening in the dream is another way of describing the onset of imaginative cognition.
In imaginative cognition, the conflict between mystical abstractionism and analytical reductionism can be resolved. Entering into the life forces consciously reveals a world of numinous and cosmic beings intent on interacting with other conscious beings. This intent to interact is at the very heart of the mystical yearning in modern physics. The step that needs to be taken is to transform an abstract universal void filled with impersonal forces by entering the beingness of beings exponentially mightier in degree in their world-creative Imaginations than the human being. The humility that this transformation can engender in the soul can bestow great powers of spiritual perception upon the seedlike life forces that presently animate the sense organs of human beings in all stages of development. Creative beings would then once again flow into our eyes through the inpouring sunlight, just as they did when our souls were engulfed in the world of fantasy before the change of teeth. The difference would be that then, when the life forces have been consciously purified in the waking dream practice, our seeing would be as exact as when an analytical reductionist describes a chemistry experiment or a theoretical physicist documents a particle track in a cloud chamber.
How can we judge whether "Steiner's path leads to the same destination" if Steiner himself knew of no such destination to begin with? Science of the spirit does not reach destinations, "theories of everything", but simply unveils with precision more and more of the intuitive landscape by growing into the inner perspectives of the archetypal Be-ings who think the manifest world, including the very dimensions of space and time, into existence. There are no final states to reach, certainly none that we can imagine.Klocek wrote:The alchemists sought to reveal the mystery, while modern science seeks to solve the mystery. Thinking you have solved the mystery can easily become a dangerous Faustian conceit.
No, the Spira's teaching does not, and this is a common problem with the most modern nondualist practices - they are "secular" practices and either deny or ignore the nonphysical spiritual reality. But if we consider for example the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, we can find that this is not the case, and this tradition deeply involves experiencing and communicating with reality beyond physical, with its rich hierarchical cosmology of the spiritual world, Tibetan visualization practice (which is similar to Steiner's imagination development practice), communications with spiritual beings from higher realms in liturgies, dreams and visions etc.AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:24 pm Now the questions here are, do Spira or similar teachers also reach the stage of seeing exactly within the spirit worlds like the physicist documents a particle track in a cloud chamber? If not, why not? And if not, isn't there an immense value in this path of 'seeing', in terms of building up a science of the soul and the spirit which can be the communal possession of all human beings on Earth striving to reunite their souls with the Cosmic organism, bringing 'secular' and 'spiritual' life into greater and greater harmony? Otherwise, the pursuit of art, science, and overall culture, as we know it today, must remain hopelessly discontinuous with the pursuit of inner development and higher knowledge. The latter must remain an exlcusively personal or small group affair. This is one of the major reasons it is said that the Western initiatic path begins at the 'destination' of traditional non-dual paths (and we all agree they don't contradict, only the former is a metamorphic advance of the latter).
Forget about Spira (see above), but I will not follow this route again of arguing which path is right and which is wrong. As I said above" "But a practical person should approach it from a different perspective, and instead of adhering to one path to criticize the others, should rather consider which practical elements of each path can be adopted to make one's own spiritual practice more efficient and integrative/encompassing."An interesting symbol here is that of the Transfiguration. In esoteric tradition, the Buddha also reached the supremely lofty metamorphic stage of the Transfiguration, and that's when his mission ended. Yet the mission of Christ Jesus contined on past that stage, after reaching it on the mountain, to that of the death, resurrection, ascension. These are images of stages which humanity as a whole can reach in times to come. No human being on Earth has reached this 'destination' yet, in its full sense, and it cannot be reached in that sense by any individuals apart from the Earth organism as a whole, i.e until there is a 'new Heaven and new Earth'. Even if one remains skeptical of these teachings, which is no doubt a healthy attitude when also accompanied by humility, wonder, and openness, it is simply erroneous to say they are equivalent to what we find offered by non-dual teachers thousands of years ago or those today. Are you willing to be open to the possibility that Steiner is not talking about the same thing as Spira in his whole body of work, of which the passage you quoted is just a tiny part, even if you disagree with the conclusions reached by spiritual science?
Apologies, the word "destination" was inappropriate there, I rather meant "a stage" or "a gate". True, there is no final state to reach, but nondual realization is a very essential gate along the way no matter which particular path you follow, so "ignore it at your own peril".Also, we should be clear there is no 'destination' as such in the Western initiatic path. Even the new Heaven and new Earth is simply another metamorphic stage in a ceaseless spiriitual evolution.
How can we judge whether "Steiner's path leads to the same destination" if Steiner himself knew of no such destination to begin with? Science of the spirit does not reach destinations, "theories of everything", but simply unveils with precision more and more of the intuitive landscape by growing into the inner perspectives of the archetypal Be-ings who think the manifest world, including the very dimensions of space and time, into existence. There are no final states to reach, certainly none that we can imagine.
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 5:24 pm (...)
Granted, there are plenty of distorted versions of nondual teachings flourishing in the modern times, which Cleric rightly criticized, but identifying the authentic nonduality with all these distortions in order to criticize it is beating a strawman. There are many seemingly different paths and practices leading to such nondual realization. For example, Sufism, Buddhism and Advaita may seem to be very different in methods and teachings for an outsider, but essentially lead to the same destination of nondual realization if practiced correctly.
(...)
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 7:46 pmNo, the Spira's teaching does not, and this is a common problem with the most modern nondualist practices - they are "secular" practices and either deny or ignore the nonphysical spiritual reality. But if we consider for example the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, we can find that this is not the case, and this tradition deeply involves experiencing and communicating with reality beyond physical, with its rich hierarchical cosmology of the spiritual world, Tibetan visualization practice (which is similar to Steiner's imagination development practice), communications with spiritual beings from higher realms in liturgies, dreams and visions etc.AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 6:24 pm Now the questions here are, do Spira or similar teachers also reach the stage of seeing exactly within the spirit worlds like the physicist documents a particle track in a cloud chamber? If not, why not? And if not, isn't there an immense value in this path of 'seeing', in terms of building up a science of the soul and the spirit which can be the communal possession of all human beings on Earth striving to reunite their souls with the Cosmic organism, bringing 'secular' and 'spiritual' life into greater and greater harmony? Otherwise, the pursuit of art, science, and overall culture, as we know it today, must remain hopelessly discontinuous with the pursuit of inner development and higher knowledge. The latter must remain an exlcusively personal or small group affair. This is one of the major reasons it is said that the Western initiatic path begins at the 'destination' of traditional non-dual paths (and we all agree they don't contradict, only the former is a metamorphic advance of the latter).
Forget about Spira (see above), but I will not follow this route again of arguing which path is right and which is wrong. As I said above" "But a practical person should approach it from a different perspective, and instead of adhering to one path to criticize the others, should rather consider which practical elements of each path can be adopted to make one's own spiritual practice more efficient and integrative/encompassing."
As I said, my views have changed a lot over the last year, so I'm not going to defend my older views. And as it turns out, The Steiner's path DOES include the nondual realization, and in that sense it encompasses both Eastern and Western approaches. Now, you can ask: "if Steiner's path does encompass Eastern nondual realization, why do we need to look back into those older traditions? The answer is - you don't need that. The ONLY thing I'm saying, repeating it again here: "nondual realization is a very essential gate along the way no matter which particular path you follow (including Steiner's!), so "ignore it at your own peril"". In other words: if you think you are following the Steiner's path but ignore the nondual realization, then you are doing it wrong, or at least doing it in an incomplete way without fully understanding it.AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:37 pm I have a sense that, no matter what I write, the thought will be this - "why is Ashvin being so argumentative, instead of just taking the olive branch I have offered that some non-dual paths have problems but others don't and are aligned with the pursuit of spiritual science?" I don't know what to say other than, what matters here is only the objective Truth as we can best understand it. Tibetan visualization, as described in that article, is not the same as spritual training for Imaginative cognition. This will become perfectly clear to anyone studying the spiritual scientific path, but only IF they are not studying it with the desire or intention of confirming what they already believe. No rigorous science can be done this way. If that is the intent, then all the books and quotes which are read will naturally confirm what one already believes. Then it will seem like Cleric and myself are just disputing your understanding of Imaginative cognition for egoic reasons, rather than because we have discerned your understanding of it to be flawed.
Of course there will be much overlap with ancient spiritual traditions and cosmologies born from an instinctive clairvoyance, and the results of spiritual scientific research, since we are dealing with One reality of shared Ideas which precipitate into human consciousness, but what matters here is not the finished content, but the scientific method and technique. What matters for the Cosmic organism is the refining and perfecting of human thinking consciousness. The Cosmos could care less about what terminological schemas we come up with to describe the higher planes of consciousness and the beings which inhabit them. The task they have given us is to become self-conscious of how exactly we are participating in spiritual evolution to make Earthly happenings into Cosmic realities, and that task is just now beginning consciously since the early 20th century. We should really sense how irrelevant our personal opinions, sympathies, feelings of being offended, etc. are to this supremely moral task we have been given.
But you have already gone down that route. You are saying the Western initiatic path, which has always maintained itself as the rightfully evolved successor of the ancient mystery traditions from East to West, is wrong. That it, in fact, has not advanced beyond what we find in Tibetan Buddhism, contrary to its own understanding. In contrast, we are saying that it makes no sense to speak of 'right' and 'wrong' within a spiritual evolutionary context. A later form of evolution cannot be judged more 'right' than an earlier form. The existence of a human being is not more 'right' than the existence of an animal or plant. The 'wrongness' only comes in when we fail to recognize a later form as being a more complete image of the Whole and, instead, equate the earlier and later forms with each other. Our subjective feelings and opinions of what "should" be cannot come into consideration. It is always these personalized interests and colorings which subconsciously provide us with justifications to only pay attention to what we already desire and to conclude what we already believe.
Yeah, we debated the perennial philosophy paradigm on this forum many times before, and I was arguing against it, but again, I changed my views on that. IMO the answer is that the traditions do not converge and often seem contradictory if taken strictly within their own boundaries and understood literally, but do converge if we extrapolate them beyond their limits and/or understand the deeper spiritual meanings of their symbols and archetypes (see my comment below).Federica wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:36 pm I am asking that, because I can very well understand such soul-position. If this is accurate, is it explorable, and what would it take, to start a careful and reasonable grieving of this view, in full respect of all traditions, until one can let go of what I would provocatively call (after full reexamination) an understandable but abstract, bubble-like utopia? If I can describe that in such precise terms, it's because I went through this process. Ashvin has mentioned that all stages can be reached by humanity as a whole in times to come, so it's not a question of debasing or downplaying any traditions. On the contrary, at different time scales and places, traditions build on one another. One Kindle note I took today on the Klocek passage quoted above by Ashvin is: "Great view of the esoteric path as the synthesis, or middle ground, between materialism and mysticism. While before I was thinking of materialism as the trend we instinctively want to reject, and both Steiner and mysticism as two attempts to do that". To me Klocek's view strengthens the realization that there really is a way to read the interplay of the various traditions, even including materialism, as an organic and ..lawful process, so simply and powerfully expressed in Klocek.
Buddhism denies the reality of a separate self of each individual (understood as some independently existing separate entity) as well as any kind of separate independently existing entity in each object or being. This teaching was very useful tool to break the bubble of the individual self/ego and, as Steiner said, "Thus to enter into all things, one must first step outside oneself. One must become “selfless” in order to become blended with the “self,” the “ego” of another being.”" As long as we believe that we exist as a some kind of entity separate from the rest of the reality (which is a common illusion of naive realism), there is no way we can " step outside oneself". Now, regarding the Self with capital "S", the quote above, and all the historical debates between Hinduists and Buddhists, was a result of terminological misunderstanding. What is called "Buddha's nature", "Tathagatagarbha" or "Dharmata" in Buddhism is exactly what is called "Atman" (Self) in Hinduism. Padmasamhava (the founder of the Tibetan Buddhism) said it eloquently:Finally, a note aside from Western esotericism, to further substantiate the fact that traditions just don't converge as perfectly and ideally as we would like. For instance, Vedanta and Buddhism that you mentioned, don't seem to converge at all. They never did in 2500 or so of parallel unfolding. In my understanding, there is a huge fundamental difference between them, that it's simply impossible to wipe out. In the words of Swami Sarvapriyananda in the talk "Vedantic Self and Buddhist Non-Self":
“This question of the Self in Buddhism and in Vedanta keeps coming up - the Atman, the Self, the independent, unitary, eternal Self with a capital S is exactly what the Buddhists deny. For them there is no independent, eternal, separate Self. It's exactly the opposite. Fundamentally, that's what Buddhism is about - denying that. According to Buddhism, there is no such Self. Not only that - it would be terrible if there were. It is the clinging to the concept of such a self which is Samsara, and if you free yourself from that, then you will get liberation. It seems to be just 180 degrees opposite to what Hinduism is saying. Vedanta keeps talking about Atman, and Buddhism keeps talking about Anatman.”
Comment:As a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable in their numbers.
Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
Stranger wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 9:40 pmYeah, we debated the perennial philosophy paradigm on this forum many times before, and I was arguing against it, but again, I changed my views on that. IMO the answer is that the traditions do not converge and often seem contradictory if taken strictly within their own boundaries and understood literally, but do converge if we extrapolate them beyond their limits and/or understand the deeper spiritual meanings of their symbols and archetypes (see my comment below).Federica wrote: ↑Sun Nov 06, 2022 8:36 pm I am asking that, because I can very well understand such soul-position. If this is accurate, is it explorable, and what would it take, to start a careful and reasonable grieving of this view, in full respect of all traditions, until one can let go of what I would provocatively call (after full reexamination) an understandable but abstract, bubble-like utopia? If I can describe that in such precise terms, it's because I went through this process. Ashvin has mentioned that all stages can be reached by humanity as a whole in times to come, so it's not a question of debasing or downplaying any traditions. On the contrary, at different time scales and places, traditions build on one another. One Kindle note I took today on the Klocek passage quoted above by Ashvin is: "Great view of the esoteric path as the synthesis, or middle ground, between materialism and mysticism. While before I was thinking of materialism as the trend we instinctively want to reject, and both Steiner and mysticism as two attempts to do that". To me Klocek's view strengthens the realization that there really is a way to read the interplay of the various traditions, even including materialism, as an organic and ..lawful process, so simply and powerfully expressed in Klocek.
Buddhism denies the reality of a separate self of each individual (understood as some independently existing separate entity) as well as any kind of separate independently existing entity in each object or being. This teaching was very useful tool to break the bubble of the individual self/ego and, as Steiner said, "Thus to enter into all things, one must first step outside oneself. One must become “selfless” in order to become blended with the “self,” the “ego” of another being.”" As long as we believe that we exist as a some kind of entity separate from the rest of the reality (which is a common illusion of naive realism), there is no way we can " step outside oneself". Now, regarding the Self with capital "S", the quote above, and all the historical debates between Hinduists and Buddhists, was a result of terminological misunderstanding. What is called "Buddha's nature" or "Dharmata" in Buddhism is exactly what is called "Atman" (Self) in Hinduism. Padmasamhava (the founder of the Tibetan Buddhism) said it eloquently:Finally, a note aside from Western esotericism, to further substantiate the fact that traditions just don't converge as perfectly and ideally as we would like. For instance, Vedanta and Buddhism that you mentioned, don't seem to converge at all. They never did in 2500 or so of parallel unfolding. In my understanding, there is a huge fundamental difference between them, that it's simply impossible to wipe out. In the words of Swami Sarvapriyananda in the talk "Vedantic Self and Buddhist Non-Self":
“This question of the Self in Buddhism and in Vedanta keeps coming up - the Atman, the Self, the independent, unitary, eternal Self with a capital S is exactly what the Buddhists deny. For them there is no independent, eternal, separate Self. It's exactly the opposite. Fundamentally, that's what Buddhism is about - denying that. According to Buddhism, there is no such Self. Not only that - it would be terrible if there were. It is the clinging to the concept of such a self which is Samsara, and if you free yourself from that, then you will get liberation. It seems to be just 180 degrees opposite to what Hinduism is saying. Vedanta keeps talking about Atman, and Buddhism keeps talking about Anatman.”
Comment:As a source, it is the origin of the diversity of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable in their numbers.
Some call it "the nature of the mind" or "mind itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
Tirthikas are the Hinduists
Sravakas are Buddhists schools adhering to the original teachings of the historical Buddha and denying the later developments of Mahayana Buddhism (the example is today's Theravada school)
